Before and after pictures - How could anybody believe the building 7 story?

enno99 · 14-03-2014 4:01pm

King Mob wrote: »

7 was the only one with a fire still going at the time.

Yet the other buildings were on fire throughout the day and no status reports or updates on what they intended to do with them. What was so special about building 7

He could have misremembered the time or who called him.

Ah the old prone to sporadic amnesia bollocks whan a witness says some thing you cant dispute

He could have spoken with an assistant or someone relying a message from the chief.

Then why did he not reveal who it was and get them to back up his story and save himself from embarrassing situations in public Surely it must be terrible to be out in public with your friends and family and be subject to this type of questioning

He could have been told that they were pulling the operation on the phone and he agreed that it was for the best.

What operations were in play concerning building 7 between 3.30 and 4.00 ?

The firefighters could have been assessing whether or not to return to the area to save the building after they had evacuated

Not likely they have just seen hundreds of their colleagues buried under the twin towers I dont think they were chomping at the bit to get into a building that was reportedly on the verge of collapse

He could be embellishing or making up the story to make for a good quote for the interview.

LOL He owns the world trade center and many other properties and businesses all over the place doing deals for millions of dollars with many different people
He exposes himself as a liar to his peers on a tv documentary that maybe a few nobody's might watch I dont think so

Literally a thousand other more likely and reasonable explanations that don't indicate a conspiracy and isn't inherently nonsensical like the conspiracy explanation.

Well if thats the top five they are obviously going down hill after that not much point in discussing them

King Mob · 14-03-2014 4:15pm

enno99 wrote: »

Yet the other buildings were on fire throughout the day and no status reports or updates on what they intended to do with them. What was so special about building 7

The other buildings were already totally destroyed at the time. Only Building 7 looked salvageable.

enno99 wrote: »

Ah the old prone to sporadic amnesia bollocks whan a witness says some thing you cant dispute

So it's impossible for people to forget or miss remember things?

enno99 wrote: »

Then why did he not reveal who it was and get them to back up his story and save himself from embarrassing situations in public Surely it must be terrible to be out in public with your friends and family and be subject to this type of questioning

Because he didn't remember? And why would he bother getting back up for it exactly?

enno99 wrote: »

What operations were in play concerning building 7 between 3.30 and 4.00 ?

None.

enno99 wrote: »

Not likely they have just seen hundreds of their colleagues buried under the twin towers I dont think they were chomping at the bit to get into a building that was reportedly on the verge of collapse

Unless of course they didn't know yet whether or not the building had the potential to cause more damage and endanger more lives, then yes, I think they would have wanted to do their jobs.

enno99 wrote: »

LOL He owns the world trade center and many other properties and businesses all over the place doing deals for millions of dollars with many different people
He exposes himself as a liar to his peers on a tv documentary that maybe a few nobody's might watch I dont think so

So then why did he agree to do the interview then if it's so beneath him?

enno99 wrote: »

Well if thats the top five they are obviously going down hill after that not much point in discussing them

No there's not much point in discussing them when you are engaging in pointless nitpicking while at the same time ignoring the simple question I asked you.

If you are subjecting the more likely explanation to this level of scrutiny, then you know just how faulty and ridiculous the alternative explanation is. Yet you aren't willing to admit this.

Brown Bomber · 14-03-2014 5:57pm

King Mob wrote: »

So it has nothing to do with the points I have made.

Even if the video shows what you said it shows, and everything he says is in context and cannot be taken any other more plausible way, I still don't think it would be convincing as already I can tell that his story does not match observation.

There is plenty of footage of the collapse of WTC7, there is no explosions heard or seen.

But at the moment I am trying to focus on the points made by Larry Silverstien.

Do you think he admitted guilt on camera?

If he did, then it was obviously Freudian or at least unintentional.

Could you give your verdict on this eye-witness testimony?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4z-Wrp1pY8

weisses · 14-03-2014 6:39pm

King Mob wrote: »

Again, another narrow assumption to make the explanation sound unreasonable.

The firefighters could have been busy assessing the damage, helping people evacuate or looking for people who might be stuck. Meanwhile the higher ups are planning an effort to fight the fire in the building while weighing up if it's possible and safe to do so. They ultimately decide not to, pull the planned operation and call the fire fighters out of the building.

.There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7: 1) Fires in high rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors; 2); fires in other high rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1; 3) water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired; and 4) while the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by fire fighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires.

Source NIST

Brown Bomber · 14-03-2014 6:40pm

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think he admitted guilt on camera?

A child died in the care of the woman, this is the transcript of the video of her interview. Does she admit any guilt?

00:13:46With Frasier's findings in hand, investigators return to X's house a second time, this time to re-create the accident that claimed a two- year-old's life.
00:16:07On December 17, investigators roll tape and ask X to walk them through the death of x
00:16:15>> I remember walking over to the refrigerator, taking something out of it, went to the microwave.
00:16:23>> KURTIS: X tells investigators she was making lunch in the kitchen and x was in the cellar when X heard two thumps. 00:16:30>> Shortly after I turned the microwave on, I heard, like, a ump and then another thump.
00:16:37>> KURTIS: X rushes to the top of the stairs to find x lying at the bottom.
00:16:42>> I went down the steps, looked over at the other kids who were still playing, hadn't had their attention over here.
00:16:48x was whimpering just for a little... just a couple of minutes. 00:16:53I thought I had just knocked the air out of him.
00:16:55I picked him up like this, and I asked, I said, "x, what are you doing?"-- something like that.
00:17:03And he was quite... he was a little bigger than this doll.
00:17:06So I bring him upstairs.
00:17:09Probably about this point, he kind of started going limp on me.
00:17:17I thought maybe he was trying to go to sleep on me.
00:17:20>> KURTIS: As x begins to lose consciousness, X calls for help.
00:17:24>> I remember going, "x, wake up, wake up. 00:17:27
Stay awake, x." My telephone was on the wall here at the time.
00:17:30I picked it up.
00:17:31 I had the emergency numbers up here.
00:17:33I called for the ambulance, told them I had a two-year-old that just fallen down the steps.
00:17:39At that point, I kept saying, "Wake up, x.
00:17:42x, stay awake." I kept trying to get him to stay awake.
00:17:45>> KURTIS: Investigators are suspicious of X's story.
00:17:48As with the prior reenactment, however, they can find no obvious holes.

King Mob · 14-03-2014 6:52pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If he did, then it was obviously Freudian or at least unintentional.

This isn;t an answer to the question.
I asked whether you thought he did.

Do you think the conspiracy explanation is more likely?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you give your verdict on this eye-witness testimony?

Again, he says that he heard that there was loud, unmistakable demolition sounding explosions.
These are no where in evidence. The testimony does not match observation.

But nothing about his story indicates a conspiracy.

It's not unreasonable that people were being kept back behind a certain distance as it's been pointed out the evacuation had already taken place.

As for what he said what the Red Cross guy said, there's tons of more likely explanation. That guy could have thought they were planning to bring it down, either because he misheard something, or that a demolition of some variety (planed and set up after the fact) was being considered. Or of course, the witness could have misheard him.
As he said, there was a lot of panic and activity at the time.

As for the countdown, he said "sounded like" a countdown. That doesn't fill me with confidence. Again, this could have been misheard or misconstrued.

This is further called into question when his testimony isn't consistent.
In the video he claims he heard numbers coming over the radio.
But here:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdown.htm

"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.

he said that he didn't hear numbers, but just "pulses" that he inferred had to be a countdown.

Also, in the video, the red cross guy was walking back from talking to a firefighter to the witness. But in the article, he's walking back and forth in front of the crowd.

And it begs the questions, why they had a countdown for people who were clearly not in on the fact? Why have a line that wasn't a safe distance away from the demolition they were planning? Why tell random Red Cross people?
I can't think of any explanation that's simpler or more likely than bad memory and miscommunication.

Finally, how exactly does he know the difference between "real explosions" and the sound of collapsing floors inside the building? He offers no reason for this beyond his own insistence, yet it would perfectly describe what he heard.

So yea, not convincing.

King Mob · 14-03-2014 7:08pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A child died in the care of the woman, this is the transcript of the video of her interview. Does she admit any guilt?

I don't understand your point.

People on this thread argued that the only meaning of what he said was that he was giving the order to demolish the building.

I don't think this is so because it doesn't make sense for him to do so, even as a Freudian slip. It doesn't make any sense with the rest of what he says and it doesn't make any sense in the context of a conspiracy.

I outlined a list of such problems and noone has been able to address them in ways that aren't self contradictory, beg yet more questions or are just plain silly.

So do you think that the most likely explanation for what he said is that he was admitting his guilt in the conspiracy?

Brown Bomber · 14-03-2014 8:02pm

y

King Mob wrote: »

I don't understand your point.

People on this thread argued that the only meaning of what he said was that he was giving the order to demolish the building.

I don't think this is so because it doesn't make sense for him to do so, even as a Freudian slip. It doesn't make any sense with the rest of what he says and it doesn't make any sense in the context of a conspiracy.

I outlined a list of such problems and noone has been able to address them in ways that aren't self contradictory, beg yet more questions or are just plain silly.

So do you think that the most likely explanation for what he said is that he was admitting his guilt in the conspiracy?

Silverstein giving orders doesn't fit with his actual statement. According to Silverstein a) The fire chief called him and the fire department made the decision to "pull".

Too much focus is on "pull" when it is what "it" is. It is the context which should always tell us what the noun "it" is a replacement for. Taking the statement in context and in a vacuum I would be inclined to lean towards "it" being the building itself. "... and then the decision was made to pull it, and then we watched the building collapse."

= (to me)

"... and then the decision was made to pull it, and then we watched the building it collapse."

That is only based on what he actually said. People are imperfect and their words can betray their true meaning so lacking the ability to read minds I don't know what he meant. If he says that what he meant was the (non-existent) fire fighting operation then we have to take him on his word. Though I would prefer to see him giving his word under oath and before a grand jury.

There are 5 possibilities as I see it for what his bizarre and ambigous statement:

1) He meant to say withdraw the firefighters.
2) He knew of the falling of building 7 with explosives and it was a slip of the tongue by a person racked with guilt
3) He misunderstood what he could and could not divulge.
4) He was telling so many lies in the interview he had a meltdown.
5) He is a narcissistic ego maniac and was so proud of what he had pulled of for mother Israel and friends Bibi Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon that his pride got the better of him.
6) He knew/was briefed that there were many, many holes in the official conspiracy theory which had led to many Americans being suspicious so in an interview he blurts out an ambigious statement where he actually confirms the suspicions (but not really) as a red herring to lead people down blind alleys.

1 and 2 are by far the most likely imo.

King Mob · 15-03-2014 1:49am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1 and 2 are by far the most likely imo.

So which is more likely?

weisses · 15-03-2014 10:28am

King Mob wrote: »

I outlined a list of such problems and noone has been able to address them in ways that aren't self contradictory, beg yet more questions or are just plain silly.

Luckily we can rule out your firefighting effort theory.

Any other reasonable/plausible explanations regarding the Pull it remarks other then the one using firefighters ?

stevejazzx · 19-10-2014 11:54am

Interesting video - as someone who sits on the fence about 911

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stOQ5Vl9d0k
Starts properly around ~ 27 mins -

How do you debunk such a wide and vast testimony / analysis and commentary from so many relevant qualified people?

weisses · 19-10-2014 4:43pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

How do you debunk such a wide and vast testimony / analysis and commentary from so many relevant qualified people?

You cannot

But according to David Cameron people believing this are as dangerous as IS ....

And we should be eradicated ....

SummerSummit · 10-05-2015 8:27pm

Read the NIST report on WTC 7

weisses · 11-05-2015 9:06am

SummerSummit wrote: »

Read the NIST report on WTC 7

Do you actually want to discuss this or are you just making sure you reach a certain required post count ?

DamagedTrax · 11-05-2015 1:07pm

SummerSummit wrote: »

Read the NIST report on WTC 7

so your answer to a conspiracy theory, brought about partially by the NIST report, is to read the NIST report?

so lets have a look at it then.

When did WTC 7 collapse?
On Sept. 11, 2001, WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m. until 5:20:52 p.m., when WTC 7 collapsed.

well they got that right but i suspect at least one of them can tell time.

What caused the fires in WTC 7?
The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

so a fire spread to a building that was basically a block away, that no plane ever hit, to such an extent that it caused a sky scraper to collapse in a few short hours.
either physics took a leap that day or someone is lying.

the progressive collapse theory
a theory they applied to one building on the day. not the other buildings, just wtc7. yet all 3 buildings collapsed because of fire (the aircraft hits arent considered reason for collapse). this would all be fine if all 3 hadn't fallen straight down (in the case of the towers, as straight down as a building that size can go). seems legit? or just the most amazing triple coincidence?

i could go on but nearly every point in the NIST report raises questions.

ill leave you with this. a picture of the chechnya luxury hotel fire, which raged for 29 hours. the structure didnt collapse. (you can replace that picture with any steel frame skyscraper that has ever went up in flames because up until 9/11 not 1, NOT EVEN ONE had fallen due to fire - One Meridian Plaza, The First Interstate Bank Building, 1 New York Plaza, The Caracass Tower, The Windsor Building in Madrid, Hotel Mandarin Oriental, Beijing... the list goes on a while but you get the idea.)

Titanucd · 12-05-2015 4:42pm

So is it possible that the difference between every other building that burnt for hours without collapsing and the twin towers was that the twin towers were (allegedly) struck by airplanes?

Could the airplane strikes have weakened the structure just enough to make the difference?

Anyone on here with an engineering/building background know if that would have been possible?

Overheal · 12-05-2015 5:58pm

Titanucd wrote: »

Anyone on here with an engineering/building background know if that would have been possible?

Absolutely, its possible, though I don't have hard science or math for that. The towers had a steel exoskeleton which isn't all that traditional for construction of that scale. If you were interested in that subject I would pull the information from the commission report and use it as a baseline for additional research/debunking. Ultimately, I highly suspect that large airliner collisions were not part of the FMEA done on the building design. To best illustrate that point, the Citigroup building in NYC:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_tower_design_flaw_that_could_have_wiped_out_the_skyscraper.html

Kind of like a CT, the events surrounding this overlooked flaw remained sparsely reported for decades after.

Here's also another article overviewing some of the design intent that goes into a more modern building:

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/124/confusing-the-wind-the-burj-khalifa-mother-nature-and-the-modern-skyscraper

Note that the Citigroup flaw was first raised in 1978; the WTC towers were opened to the public in 1973. "Old" engineering went into the design of both - no fancy computers, the occasional reverse-polish-notation calculator and a slide rule were the high tech computational widgets of the era and all drawings were still done by hand. Contrast to today, FEA, solid modeling and digital drawing is all done by software suites like Creo or Solidworks, Catia, etc. to the point where an intern having access to a solid model of a building could say "what would happen if King Kong sat on top of this building" and then over a cup of coffee have their computer crunch the math on what type of stresses that might put on the building - beam by beam, element by element.

Basically they weighed technology, cost, and requirements to design the towers as they did. It is infeasible for any engineering project to fully rectify all potential issues - rarely will you be able to say "this thing does this process super-efficiently, at a low cost in a tiny and lightweight package" - either the cost, the scale, or the performance will likely suffer to accommodate any number of factors, like safety or timeframe, etc. and with the WTC, if "collision with an airplane" wasn't realistically considered, then that thing happened, you have potential for disaster. The same reason most buildings collapse under earthquake conditions. Introduce unpredicted stress in the form of a high-speed collision (in excess of 360 knots, for an object 315,000 lbm - that is [F=mv; 185.2 m/s *142882kg] 26,461.746 kN of force. Or, roughly 26.5 MPa assuming that during initial impact the nose of the plane is a square meter, sure lets go for it. Yolo. Either way, that's not enough force to simply 'break' steel, with yield strength in Gigapascals. However, it's all about how the math is swung and how you calculate impulse. For instance, kind of like boiling a frog, you can often put far higher amounts of stress over long periods of time than you can smaller forces on an impulse - like running over sheet metal with a tank, or blowing through it with a bullet.

It's a peculiar set of circumstances but the WTC towers were peculiar buildings.

DamagedTrax · 12-05-2015 6:35pm

Titanucd wrote: »

So is it possible that the difference between every other building that burnt for hours without collapsing and the twin towers was that the twin towers were (allegedly) struck by airplanes?

Could the airplane strikes have weakened the structure just enough to make the difference?

Anyone on here with an engineering/building background know if that would have been possible?

they definitely could have but then what happened building 7? no plane hit it, why did it fall?

i dont have a civil engineering background (other than a general interest in it) but these guys most certainly do.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

of course the people who believe the official line will question their legitimacy just as we question the legitimacy of the official report.

ive long ago decided that we'll probably never know the real truth so all thats left are thoeries gathered by our own research into the event.

tafkach · 13-06-2015 12:12am

King Mob wrote: »

The actual explanation goes like this:

The fire in the lower floors of the building heated and weakened several of the supporting steel columns in the building,

One of these columns expands due to heat and breaks free of the side supports that keep it straight and stable.

Lacking that support and being weakened by the fire, the column buckles and fails.

The section of building being supported by that column collapses and falls (this being shown by the east part of the penthouse disappearing).

The weight of this collapse is put on additional columns which are also already weakened. Not being able to support the additional weight, they also collapse which in turn puts more weight on yet more columns.

The collapse spreads outwards from the initial partial collapse inside to outside. (this is shown by the rest of the penthouse falling in east to west.)

The collapsing parts pull down more of the building and overload other parts of the building until it collapses totally.

So which one of these parts do you think is impossible or unlikely?

I think that argument may work fine had Building 7 been made a house of cards, but the main problem that I have with the collapse of Building 7 is that it is built from STEEL. There is no history at all of any steel building suffering a complete symmetrical collapse due to a fire. In fact, the reason that buildings are built from steel is because of it's strength and resistance to fire. And that's the main reason that Building 7 raises a lot of questions. This has never happened to a steel building before...

Overheal · 14-06-2015 3:14am

How many steel buildings have had 747s slammed into them though?

King Mob · 14-06-2015 1:34pm

tafkach wrote: »

I think that argument may work fine had Building 7 been made a house of cards, but the main problem that I have with the collapse of Building 7 is that it is built from STEEL. There is no history at all of any steel building suffering a complete symmetrical collapse due to a fire. In fact, the reason that buildings are built from steel is because of it's strength and resistance to fire. And that's the main reason that Building 7 raises a lot of questions. This has never happened to a steel building before...

No it's never happened to a steel building with that particular structure before.
It was a unique building in a unique situation.
You point might have weight if you could show that a similar building in similar circumstances didn't collapse, but since none exist, you've no basis for saying that it's suspicious.

It would also be the only skyscraper ever in history to be secretly demolished, but does that mean that explanation is impossible?

Also it wasn't a complete collapse initially and it wasn't symmetrical.

Could you point out which part(s) of my summary of the actual explanation you disagree with or believe is impossible?

weisses · 16-06-2015 9:31am

Overheal wrote: »

How many steel buildings have had 747s slammed into them though?

pedantic hat on ........... None never ever

weisses · 16-06-2015 9:44am

King Mob wrote: »

No it's never happened to a steel building with that particular structure before.
It was a unique building in a unique situation.
You point might have weight if you could show that a similar building in similar circumstances didn't collapse, but since none exist, you've no basis for saying that it's suspicious.

Thats just a typical response if you cannot really explain what happened when taking in account the official waffle regarding this

King Mob wrote: »

Also it wasn't a complete collapse initially and it wasn't symmetrical.

How was it not symmetrical ? (leaving out the fabricated NIST hypothesis)

King Mob · 16-06-2015 10:13am

weisses wrote: »

How was it not symmetrical ? (leaving out the fabricated NIST hypothesis)

Because all the video shows that it was not symmetrical by any definition.

Even if you ignore the fact that the penthouse collapsed before the rest of the building (like most conspiracy theorists do), it still buckled off centre and tilted back as it fell. That's not symmetrical.

But that is really just an aside point I made in addition to my main point.

weisses · 16-06-2015 11:31am

King Mob wrote: »

Because all the video shows that it was not symmetrical by any definition.

I think we should leave it to the "experts" who defined this as being a "symmetrical" collapse

According to the people at NIST

The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing

another interesting view on it

https://www.metabunk.org/the-uniqueness-of-the-wtc7-collapse.t1972/page-3

King Mob · 16-06-2015 11:51am

weisses wrote: »

I think we should leave it to the "experts" who defined this as being a "symmetrical" collapse

According to the people at NIST

The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing

another interesting view on it

Symmetric appearence.
Also this is leaving aside the start of the collapse as I said.

And like i said, it buckled off center and it tilted back.

I have no interest in arguing pedantics.

weisses · 16-06-2015 1:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

Because all the video shows that it was not symmetrical by any definition.

NIST states

The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7

What would NIST refer to other then the video footage when they say appearance ?

King Mob · 16-06-2015 1:40pm

weisses wrote: »

NIST states

What would NIST refer to other then the video footage when they say appearance ?

Can you explain how the supposed symmetry indicates that something suspicious is going on?
Can you explain how this supposed symmetry is inconsistent with the official explanation?

If not, there's little point in continuing.

weisses · 16-06-2015 2:03pm

King Mob wrote: »

Can you explain how the supposed symmetry indicates that something suspicious is going on?
Can you explain how this supposed symmetry is inconsistent with the official explanation?

If not, there's little point in continuing.

And what you describe above is not your point I was referring to

And this is not the "anwswer the question with a question forum

You stated that the video shows that it was not symmetrical by any definition

NIST mentioned the symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7

So again ... .What would NIST refer to other then the video footage when they say appearance ?

Hulk Hands · 25-06-2015 2:39pm

SummerSummit wrote: »

Read the NIST report on WTC 7

Didn't the NIST report kickstart the whole conspiracy movement in earnest? There were obviously people involved beforehand, but wasn't it NIST and their fisher price report into the whole affair that actually got qualified engineers and architects involved rather than just crackpots, such was the complete lack of scientific logic in their findings?

Before and after pictures - How could anybody believe the building 7 story?

Comments